Dems need to tell me something new
Kevin Ferris is a member of The Inquirer Editorial Board
Frat-boy Bush went AWOL on his National Guard duty.
Silver-spoon-in-his-
mouth George hasn't the brains or skills to accomplish anything on his own.
The once young and irresponsible W. is still too immature and irresponsible to lead the nation.
Pick one, or bundle them up. And there you have the Democrats' strategy for success in 2004. Maybe since it sort of worked - at least in terms of the popular vote - it's worth trying again.
Add it to the gut-twisting anger some folks experience at the mention of the President's name, and you can almost see the hordes voting en masse for regime change in November.
Almost. If it was really a winning strategy, Al Gore would be running for reelection.
Yes, there were serious concerns about George W. Bush in 2000. He hadn't been long in politics. He had no foreign policy experience - and seemingly not a whole lot of interest in the topic. Against a sitting vice president with years of experience in Washington, Bush's resume was weak.
Emphasizing that resume now probably gets the party's base heated up, but is it telling the rest of us something we didn't already know? Isn't it just one more in a series of "gotchas" that didn't pan out? As in:
The Bush administration took calls from Enron as the company was going under. That must mean... well, that the administration could act appropriately, even toward a campaign contributor. There were dots to connect that would have prevented Sept. 11. That must mean... it sure didn't mean that Bush deliberately let terrorists attack, as at least one Democratic congresswoman charged.
Bush was for regime change in Iraq from Day One, charges a former cabinet member. That must mean... well, it meant Paul O'Neill was taking back on the Today show what he'd said on 60 Minutes the night before.
Now it's: There's something not quite right about this National Guard business. That must mean... What, exactly? That members of the U.S. military won't follow this commander-in-chief's orders when it comes to toppling two despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the war on terror? That he will be unable to act boldly or decisively when it comes to making life-and-death decisions? That somehow, after Sept. 11, he isn't committed to going after those responsible?
I already know Bush had an undistinguished career before the age of 40 or so, but I also saw him step up to the plate after Sept. 11. I know when he's scheduled for something like a Meet the Press interview that there's a chance things won't go well - just as I know he's given some of the best speeches about freedom, human rights and democracy of the last half century. I know about his administration's stubborn refusal ever to admit a mistake, while noting with relief that it can and will correct its course.
Democrats need to tell me something I don't already know. How (or will) the war on terrorism continue under a Democratic administration? What parts have gone right? What needs to change? When do you look for broad international coalitions, and when do you go alone? Can you withstand the international condemnation that can come with going alone? What will your policy of preemption look like? What will you do differently to keep places such as Iran and North Korea free of nuclear weapons? Will foreign leaders - allies and foes - believe you when you threaten to use force?
We know how Bush will act. That's his burden - or strength. It's what he's done lately that will make a difference. Not reruns from campaign 2000.
philly.com |
